Stony Brook University.

What Stony Brook's own documents say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

“The student may bring an advisor or witness. In no such case shall the advisor be an attorney. An advisor may not speak on behalf of a student nor do they have privilege of the floor. The Academic Judiciary Office must be notified of the intention to bring advisors or witnesses no later than two working days prior to the hearing.” At the earlier meeting with the Academic Integrity Officer the policy contemplates a different companion: “This meeting may include an academic advisor or other professional from the student's College/School to address the implications of the accusation on degree progress or other related academic issues/concerns.” On recording: not stated in the sources reviewed. The full Academic Integrity Policy — its Definition, Penalties, Multiple Offenses, Appeals, Hearing Boards, Evidence, The Hearing, Appeal of Committee Action, Completion of Cases and Communication with Student sections — and the student FAQ were read for a provision permitting or prohibiting audio or video recording of the officer meeting or the hearing, and none appears in either. — Academic Integrity Policy, sections “The Hearing” and the opening section (page states “Updated August 2023”; retrieved Aug 31, 2026); undergraduate scope · Academic Integrity Policy — Policies and Procedures

What follows on the record

“A remark of 'Found Guilty Academic Dishonesty' will be placed on the student's transcript and a grade of Q, denoting a violation of academic integrity, will be recorded for the course. The Q is factored into the student's GPA as an F as long as it is on the transcript.” The policy provides for removal after a required course: “After successfully completing the non-credit academic integrity course (called the Q Course), the academic dishonesty notation and the Q grade (if applicable) are removed. The Q grade is replaced with the penalty grade.” While a matter is pending, the FAQ states that “the student will receive a grade of 'I' in the course and a notation that reads 'Academic Judiciary Action Pending' will appear on the student's transcript,” and that both are removed after a hearing where the student is found not responsible. On retention and on disclosure to graduate programs, employers or licensing boards: not stated in the sources reviewed. The Academic Integrity Policy, the student FAQ and the Academic Judiciary Office's own pages were read for a records-retention schedule and for any provision on outside disclosure, and neither appears; the policy speaks to transcript notations only. — Academic Integrity Policy, section “Penalties for Violating Academic Integrity” (page states “Updated August 2023”; retrieved Aug 31, 2026), and F.A.Q.s: Students (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 31, 2026); undergraduate scope · Academic Integrity Policy · F.A.Q.s: Students

The two questions an adviser raises first, answered from this institution’s own published documents — or recorded as not stated in them.

How a matter starts. The Academic Integrity Policy (page states “Updated August 2023”; retrieved Aug 31, 2026) places the referral with the office rather than the instructor, and sets a reporting window:

Notification, and the window to appeal the accusation itself:

The standard of proof, which is worth reading closely because it is not the one most institutions publish:

The same “Evidence” section lists what a board may consider, and one listed item — “a dramatic change in writing style” — is the kind of observation an AI-detection flag tends to accompany.

Penalties, and what a second finding carries:

Appeal of a hearing decision, its grounds and its windows:

And one provision that sits inside the appeals section and is easy to read past:

Source for all six blocks above: Academic Integrity Policy — Policies and Procedures. Two further consequences the university publishes about the Q grade sit on the student FAQ (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 31, 2026): that the Q Course must be completed “no later than the academic semester immediately following the finding of an academic integrity violation” or the Q “can convert to a permanent Q/F,” and that students carrying a Q grade “may not graduate with University honors,” with exceptions reviewed for some majors and none made for College of Engineering and Applied Sciences and College of Business majors. Any date above is quoted from the policy, not a deadline calculation performed for you. What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

Revision history of this page

2026-08-29 — Page created. All quotations retrieved this date, first-party, from the stonybrook.edu pages linked beside them. Source page dates: the Academic Integrity Policy states “Updated August 2023”; the CELT flagged-paper evaluation process carries a 2025 copyright line naming CELT and the Academic Judiciary Committee; the Division of Information Technology's Turnitin service page carries an announcement dated Oct 15, 2025 and its Respondus page one dated Aug 3, 2026. The Academic Integrity site's pages (Policies and Procedures navigation, F.A.Q.s, Contact Us, Turnitin: Plagiarism Prevention, Detecting Plagiarism, Generative AI), the CELT syllabus-language page, the AI Tools directory and both Ombuds Office pages display no on-page date; each is recorded with its retrieval date only.

2026-08-29 — Detection sweep recorded. Named-vendor sweep: Turnitin (including the SimCheck and Originality product names), Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus and Examity were searched against stonybrook.edu. Two came back positive: Turnitin, documented with AI content checking and available for instructor-enabled assignments in Brightspace, and Respondus (LockDown Browser and Monitor, documented as virtual proctoring with no AI-writing-detection claim). The SimCheck and Originality product names do not appear; Stony Brook documents the Turnitin similarity report and AI content checker in Brightspace instead. All other vendors came back empty. Category sweep: the Division of Information Technology's AI tools directory lists Copilot, Gemini, NotebookLM, Turnitin and Zoom AI Companion, of which only Turnitin is a detection tool; no public Brightspace external-tool or LTI catalogue page was located, and Turnitin and Respondus are each documented on their own service pages instead; the Graduate School's electronic thesis and dissertation route runs through ProQuest with no detector named, and no graduate-only or dissertation-scoped pipeline was located; the proctoring stack is Respondus alone; the CELT AI pages name Turnitin and no other detector; the Libraries' generative-AI guide discusses GPTZero critically as an example of detector bias against non-native English writers and is a subject guide, not a deployment. Step-2 disqualification check: pass. No Stony Brook page disables AI detection or recommends against it across the board; CELT states availability and a sole-basis limitation in the same paragraph, which is a statement about evidentiary weight and is quoted as such. Deliberate omissions. Third-party tracker, vendor-blog and student-press claims about Stony Brook were disregarded as unverified and are neither quoted nor linked. The “Detecting Plagiarism” page's list of outside services is recorded above with its provenance and is not stated as a deployment.

2026-08-29 — Scope, and what is deliberately not on this page. Everything quoted in section 02 is undergraduate-scoped: the Academic Integrity Policy and the Academic Judiciary Office sit under the Division of Undergraduate Education. The Graduate Bulletin carries a separate academic-honesty regulation with a different reporting chain, running through Graduate Program Directors to the Dean of the Graduate School; that page redirects to a client-rendered catalog shell which returned only navigation to a plain fetch, so nothing is quoted from it and no graduate-scoped claim is made here. A graduate reader should not read section 02 as covering their case. Also uncaptured: the university's generative-AI FAQ at stonybrook.edu/genai returned an empty body to a plain fetch, and the Ombuds Office Charter PDF was not retrieved; nothing is quoted or paraphrased from either. All three items are paraphrase-pending and need a manual browser read before promotion.

2026-08-29 — Absences recorded at the scope actually searched. No provision permitting or prohibiting recording of the Academic Integrity Officer meeting or of a hearing appears in the Academic Integrity Policy or the student FAQ. No records-retention schedule for academic-integrity case files is published. No provision on disclosure of findings to graduate programs, employers or licensing boards is published. The Academic Judiciary Office's contact page publishes a phone number and email addresses but no street address, building or room, and the docket says so rather than substituting a university switchboard number. Internet Archive captures: to be added. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-08-29).

2026-08-31 — First source re-verification since publication; automated pass, no human review claimed. Every quoted source re-fetched and found unchanged, each quotation verbatim: the DoIT AI Tools guide (Turnitin AI content checker), the DoIT Turnitin service page (both quotations; most recent announcement still Oct 15, 2025), the Academic Integrity Turnitin: Plagiarism Prevention page, CELT's Course Syllabus page (all three AI-detection quotations, incl. the sole-basis caution), CELT's AI-Flagged Paper Evaluation Process (the Judiciary-Committee collaboration line, the false-positive line, and the keep-time-stamped-drafts line; still © 2025 CELT/Academic Judiciary Committee), the DoIT Respondus page (all three quotations; most recent announcement still Aug 3, 2026), the Academic Integrity Policy (the reporting/notification/appeal-window quotations, the “clear and convincing” standard, the five-person hearing-board composition, the penalty and second-offense passages, the seven-business-day appeal provision, the false-evidence provision, and the Q-Course removal sentence), the student FAQ (the transcript-remark/Q-grade block, the pending-“I”-grade notation, the Q-Course deadline and the honors consequence), and the Ombuds pages (the independence and neutrality statements and the two campus-split service descriptions; contacts 631-632-9200 / ombuds@stonybrook.edu / 137 Psychology B re-confirmed from the contact page). Retrieval dates advanced to Aug 31. FOR THE NEXT REVIEWER: the transcript-notation quotation (“A remark of 'Found Guilty Academic Dishonesty'…”) is carried on the student FAQ, and the Q-Course removal sentence on the Policy page; the section-02 record row cites both sources and both were confirmed verbatim this pass. Detection inventory (named-vendor + category sweeps) re-run: no detector beyond Turnitin located; Respondus remains proctoring-only; the DoIT AI directory still lists Copilot/Gemini/NotebookLM/Turnitin/Zoom AI Companion with only Turnitin a detector; the section-01 absences stand. Still not retrievable to a plain fetch and still unquoted, as at build: the Graduate Bulletin honesty regulation (client-rendered), the stonybrook.edu/genai FAQ (empty body), and the Ombuds Charter PDF. No captures requested this pass.

Spot an error or an outdated quotation? hello@gatheredwork.com — corrections are made on the record, in this log.